Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the homeland security appropriations bill. This legislation improves our homeland security in three key ways.

First, it helps us crack down on illegal immigration and protects our borders by providing funding to hire 1,000 additional border patrol agents.

Second, the bill provides $3.3 billion for first responders, including grants that go directly to high-risk urban areas and firefighters. Significantly, for the first time, the majority of the funding for first responders is appropriately allocated based on the actual risk of terrorism to these areas.

Third, this legislation provides key funding for critical explosive detection devices, which are used to screen high-risk cargo coming into the United States through our seaports and airports.

I am proud that one of the top manufacturers in the world of these explosive detection devices is CyTerra, a company headquartered in my district of Orlando, Florida. On August 15 of this year, Senator Mel Martinez and I toured CyTerra's facilities and met with their employees. These hard-working folks are proud of their role in making our country safer, and they should be. Their bomb detection devices have already saved many lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying homeland security appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of the underlying Head Start bill. Since I was elected to Congress in 2000, we have increased Head Start funding by 28 percent, from $5.8 billion in 2000 to $6.8 billion today.

Head Start is a crucial program for over 900,000 of our Nation's most needy students. It provides child development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other activities to help prepare young children for kindergarten. A good Head Start program will make sure that low- income 4-year-old children will know their ABCs, be able to count to 20, have the building blocks they need to hit the ground running on their first day of kindergarten.

We know today how important early childhood education is to a child's long-term success. Head Start makes sure that children from low-income families have the educational foundation they need to succeed.

As a father of two, I know firsthand how precious our children's first years are and how important they are to our children's future. I am proud of Congress' increased support for low-income children through the Head Start program, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the Head Start reauthorization bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, the Head Start bill before us today is a good bill, I plan on voting for it, but I also believe that the Souder amendment will make it an even better bill by restoring the full authority of the parent policy councils in the Head Start program.

Currently, Head Start programs across the country are jointly governed by a board of directors made up of experts and by a policy council made up of parents. Regrettably, the Head Start reauthorization bill before us fundamentally changes the authority of the parent policy councils. Specifically, it removes their ability to vote on program policy and instead makes them merely an advisory committee to the board. Well, who knows what is best for kids, the parents who are with them every day, or the bureaucrats and politicians who live 1,000 miles away?

Clearly, the parents are in the best position to know what is best for the children, and I do not have to guess about that. On August 8, 2005, I personally met with 120 Head Start parents in Orlando, Florida. They told me they were concerned about the reduced role of the parent policy councils under this bill, and they wanted to restore the voting authority. That is what the Souder amendment does. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I am a co-sponsor of the Children's Safety Act because we must crack down against child molesters by making sure they serve longer sentences and by requiring sex offenders who fail to comply with registration requirements to go back to jail where they belong.

The best way to protect young children is to keep child predators locked up in the first place because someone who has molested a child will do it again and again and again.

Earlier this year, two young girls from my home State of Florida, 9- year-old Jessica Lunsford and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde, were abducted, raped and killed. In both cases, the crimes were committed by convicted sex offenders who were out on probation. Coddling pedophiles with rehabilitation and self-esteem courses does not work. Locking them up works.

This law imposes a mandatory minimum punishment of 30 years for those who commit violent sexual crimes against children, as well as a minimum punishment of life in prison or a death sentence when that crime results in the child's death.

This legislation also cracks down on those sex offenders who refuse to follow registration requirements. Nearly 100,000 sex offenders remain unregistered and are moving freely about the country. This legislation will make it a Federal crime for those sex offenders who fail to register and will send them back to jail for another 5 to 20 years.

It is high time that our government cracks down on child molesters by implementing these commonsense reforms, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3132.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3169) to provide the Secretary of Education with waiver authority for students who are eligible for Pell grants who are adversely affected by a natural disaster, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I introduced the Pell Grant Hurricane and Natural Disaster Relief Act.

Last week Hurricane Katrina struck Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. While the damage from this storm is particularly tragic, the hurricane's devastation was a familiar sight. Last year, four hurricanes ravaged Florida over a 40-day period. Many students lost their homes, their jobs, and they were forced to withdraw from school.

In addition to all the suffering they underwent, Pell grant recipients who withdrew from classes were forced to repay any Pell grant funds they used to pay for school expenses beyond fees and tuition, or else were barred from enrolling in future classes.

I believe that our neediest students, who would not have access to college without Pell grants, should not be further punished after enduring a natural disaster.

After writing a letter to the Secretary of Education to ask for relief for these students, I discovered that students who are victims of natural disasters can receive similar help with regard to student loans, but the only way to help Pell grant recipients is by passing this legislation.

My bill would allow the Secretary, in her discretion, to provide a waiver for repaying Pell grants for students who were forced to withdraw from classes due to a natural disaster as declared by the President of the United States.

Language from this bill was incorporated into the higher education bill passed by the Committee on Education and the Workforce earlier this year with unanimous, bipartisan support.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3169.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense piece of legislation that will make sure our neediest college students will not be forced to prematurely terminate their college education due to Hurricane Katrina or other natural disasters. Without this legislation, thousands of college students will be barred from enrolling in future college classes as a result of a hurricane that they had no control over whatsoever.

Let us join together now in a bipartisan spirit and help these college students by providing the Secretary of Education with waiver authority for students who are eligible for Pell grants and who have been adversely impacted by natural disasters. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3169.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I support common-sense medical liability reform because it will increase patients' access to lifesaving health care, and it will save taxpayers over $30 billion a year in unnecessary defensive medical tests.

Let me give a real-life example. The Orlando Regional Medical Center is a large hospital located in the heart of my district in Orlando, Florida. It is home to the only Level I Trauma Center in central Florida which specializes in treating patients with severe brain and spine injuries.

Unfortunately, this important trauma center is in danger of closing because we only have a handful of neurosurgeons left in Orlando, and they cannot afford to pay the medical liability insurance premiums of over $250,000 a year. As a result of this liability crisis, this top- rated trauma center had no choice but to turn away over 1,000 patients last year.

Now, what happens when neurosurgeons are not available? We do not have to guess. I personally met with Mrs. Leanne Dyess, who testified before the Committee on the Judiciary. Her husband, Tony Dyess, suffered a very serious head injury in a car accident. The family had excellent medical insurance. What they did not have a was a neurosurgeon. All the neurosurgeons in her area had left town because they could not afford the liability insurance. As a result, it took 6 hours to transport Mr. Dyess to a different location, but it was too late. He needed to be treated within the first hour. Mr. Dyess is now permanently brain damaged. He is unable to communicate, work, or to provide for his family.

Mr. Speaker, some opponents of this legislation say it is not Congress' problem, let us just leave it up to the States. Well, it is our problem, because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that this legislation will save taxpayers over $30 billion a year by avoiding unnecessary medical tests which are ordered by doctors under Medicare and Medicaid because of defensive medicine.

It does not have to be that way. Neurosurgeons in California, where they have a $250,000 cap, pay an average of only $59,000 a year in liability insurance, not the $250,000 they pay in Orlando, Florida. Let us bring common sense back to our health care system and give patients access to trauma centers and neurosurgeons.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I support H.R. 525. The number one problem facing small businesses today is the skyrocketing cost of health insurance. Association health plans are a big part of the solution.

I met with many small business people in my hometown of Orlando, Florida, and they told me they need association health plans. I agree with them, and here is why: of the 45 million Americans without health insurance, 60 percent are small business employees and their families. They do not have health insurance because their small business employers cannot afford it.

If we would allow these small businesses to join together, they could have the same bargaining power as large Fortune 500 corporations, which could lower their health insurance premiums by up to 30 percent. Association health plans will increase access to health care for millions of Americans now without insurance.

It certainly is an issue that is personal to me. I had the happy privilege of flying down to Orlando, Florida, with President Bush on Air Force One on March 18 of this year. He asked me what, if anything, he could do to help small businesses in my area. I told him what the small businesses told me: the number one thing they want is association health plans, and he pledged to support it and use his bully pulpit to help it get through the Senate.

I also authored a Small Business Bill of Rights that passed this House back in April. It called for the passage of association health plans, fixing the death tax, and cracking down on frivolous lawsuits. This House is on record as supporting that. It is time for us to take the lead today and help small business people provide health insurance to their employees. Vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 525. I urge my colleagues to do these things.

Mr. Speaker, the number one problem facing small businesses today is the skyrocketing cost of health insurance. Association health plans are a big part of the solution.

I met with many small-business people from my hometown of Orlando, Florida, and they told me that they need association health plans. I believe them, and I will tell you why.

Of the 45 million Americans now without health insurance, 60 percent are small-business employees and their families. They do not have health insurance because their employers cannot afford it. If we allowed these small businesses to join together, they could have the same bargaining power as a large corporation, which could lower their health insurance premiums by up to 30 percent.

Mr. Speaker, association health plans will increase access to health care for millions of Americans now without health insurance.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on association health plans.

Mr. Speaker, reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act today is literally a matter of life or death because it is helping us to win the war on terrorism. Since we passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001 we have convicted 212 terrorists and $136 million in terrorist assets have been frozen. Passing the PATRIOT Act is purely a matter of common sense.

Is it not common sense that we give law enforcement the same tools to go after terrorists as they now have to go after Mafia dons and drug dealers?

Is it not common sense that we can share data between the intelligence community and law enforcement now?

Is it not common sense that we track deadly terrorists even though they cross jurisdictional lines or switch cell phones?

The worst thing that the critics can say about the PATRIOT Act is that supposedly law abiding citizens will have their bookstore and library habits monitored. That is a totally bogus allegation. You must go before a Federal judge, get a court order and prove that it is a matter of international terrorism. How many times has that happened since we passed the PATRIOT Act? Exactly zero, according to our Attorney General.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I initially planned to offer an amendment today to increase the maximum Pell grant award to $4,150. By increasing Pell grant funding by $211 million, that would be funding through an offset by cutting administrative expenses under this bill by 4.86 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Regula and Chairman Boehner regarding this amendment, and I would consider not offering this amendment if I can hear their comments regarding the possibility of ultimately seeking a maximum higher Pell grant award through good-faith negotiations with the Senate during the conference process.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by just putting this issue in a bit of a historical perspective. Looking at this chart, it reflects the Pell grant maximum awards over the past 10 years. And you can see, 10 years ago, in 1986 the maximum Pell award was $2,100. This year it is $4,100.

The yellow reflects the period of time that the Democrats were in control of Congress, the red reflects the time when Republicans took over Congress. And you can see the relative spikes in the Pell grant funding. It was essentially flatlined for about 10 years before Republicans took over.

Now, when I got here to Congress, elected in 2000, we were spending $7.6 billion a year in Pell grants. The maximum award was $3,300. This year we are spending $13.4 billion a year on Pell grants, and the maximum award is up

to $4,100. That is an increase of 76 percent in overall total Pell grant funding.

In addition to the $13.4 billion we have in the bill this year for Pell grants, the bill also lists a very important addition of $4.3 billion to retire the Pell grant shortfall that has accumulated in the program over the past several years because of higher-than-expected student participation.

That is a grand total of $17.7 billion for Pell grants, the largest investment in Pell grants in the history of the United States. I want to commend and thank both the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for their strong leadership in increasing Pell grants, which has resulted in an additional $1.5 million young people being able to go to college since the year 2000.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you why I drafted this amendment today, though. On January 14, 2005, President Bush gave a speech in Florida where he said, ``We want to increase the Pell grants by $100 per year over the next 5 years. Pell grants are important. That is why we want to expand them.''

I agree with President Bush about the importance of increasing Pell grants. Pell grants are truly the passport out of poverty for so many deserving young people. I myself would not have been able to go to college without Pell grants. And I have the honor and privilege of serving as Chairman of the Congressional Pell Grant Caucus.

On February 7, 2005, President Bush followed up his Florida speech on Pell grants by submitting a budget which also called for increasing the Pell grant maximum award of $4,050 by an additional $100 this year. On May 26, 2005, I sent the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) a letter signed by 46 Members of Congress, which encouraged the Appropriations Committee to fully fund the $4,150 request by President Bush.

This bill does, in fact, increase the overall award, but only by $50, not the $100 requested by President Bush. And so the purpose of my amendment was to fully fund the President's request.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) at this time to see if he would be willing to work with the Senate during the conference to see if it is possible to increase the Pell grant funding to an amount sufficient to fully fund this $4,150 request by President Bush.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to hear the comments of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner's) comments on the issue as well.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, in light of the comments by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the comments of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) to at least make a good-faith effort to try to increase the maximum Pell grant award during the conference process, I will not offer my amendment at this time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Honda

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that both Republican and Democrats have accepted my amendment and that it has passed today as part of the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it was a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars by the U.S. Department of Education to pay $240,000 to columnist Armstrong Williams to promote The No Child Left Behind Act.

This amendment ensures that it will never happen again by providing that no taxpayer

funds shall be used, either directly or indirectly, by private contractors, which include public relations firms, journalists, and media commentators, to support or defeat legislation pending before this Congress.

The policy behind my amendment is straightforward. Using taxpayer dollars to bribe journalists to bias their news coverage in favor of legislation is a waste of taxpayer money, it is a black eye on the independence of our free press, and it undermines the integrity of our democracy.

Mr. Chairman, let me give you some background as to why this amendment is necessary. In January of this year, media reports revealed that the U.S. Department of Education entered into a $1 million contract with a private contractor, known as the Ketchum Public Relations firm. This PR firm then turned around and paid $240,000 in a sub-contract to newspaper columnist and TV commentator Armstrong Williams to promote The No Child Left Behind Act.

Specifically, under the contract, Armstrong Williams was paid to ``regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts,'' to ``encourage the producers'' of a cable TV program to ``periodically address'' the NCLB law, and it specified that the Secretary of Education and other education officials would have the right to appear from ``time to time'' as guests on Williams' TV programs.

Shortly after learning about this situation, President Bush criticized the Education Departments $240,000 payout to Armstrong Williams and ordered his cabinet secretaries not to hire columnists or commentators to promote administration policies.

Specifically, President Bush stated: ``All our cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet. We need to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.''

I agree with President Bush.

This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It's a common sense issue. For example, while the Armstrong Williams matter happened during the Bush administration's watch, similar problems happened during the Clinton administration.

For example, the GAO noted that the Clinton administration's Health and Human Services department used actors in October of 1999 to portray reporters in fake news segments that were distributed to TV stations, without disclosing that the government had actually funded and produced the supposed news segments.

Mr. Chairman, it is dead wrong to use taxpayer dollars to pay private contractors, such as public relations firms, journalists and media commentators, to promote legislation pending before this Congress, and for that reason, I wholeheartedly thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for voting ``yes'' on my amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Keller

Amendment No. 19: Page 99, line 5, insert ``directly or

indirectly, including by private contractor,'' after ``shall

be used,''.

Offered By: Mr. Keller

Amendment No. 20: Page 75, strike lines 6 and 7 and insert

the following:

The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be

eligible during award year 2006-2007 shall be $4,150.

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the

following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to two central Floridians marking a special anniversary. Doc Holliday and Johnny Magic have been a team on the Orlando airwaves for 15 years now.

In an industry where many hear the words ``you are fired'' more often than Donald Trump's would-be apprentices, the Doc and Johnny Show on XL 106.7 has stood the test of time. These guys are like gum under a bus seat. They have survived four presidents, three hurricanes, and have gotten themselves in trouble too many times to count.

The idea for the Doc and Johnny show came the way many great ideas in this country come about, over a beer. Doc Holliday is a huge sports fan with a reputation for enjoying the big game with a big beverage. Johnny Magic is a single guy in his 40s, loved by the station's female fans, which sort of makes him the Fonz of Orlando.

They have worked together 15 years and are still going strong. And behind one of the most successful morning radio shows in Central Florida are two men who have shown a strong commitment to making my home town of Orlando a better place. Let me give you three examples.

First, in 1991, Doc and Johnny helped 30 needy families make sure they had Christmas presents under the tree for their children. Last year, the Baby DJ Program help make sure 5,000 kids had toys at Christmas. It is a program I am proud to have personally donated to.

Second, after the events of September 11, 2001, Doc and Johnny broke from their regular format and instead had numerous elected and law enforcement officials on their radio show to make sure the people of Orlando had the very latest information on the war in terrorism in what was a very uncertain time for our Nation.

Finally, when my State was hit last summer with hurricane after hurricane, Doc and Johnny's Neighbor Helping Neighbor program set up shop at a local mall and gave listeners a place to donate and pick up hurricane relief supplies, all free of charge.

When I asked their long term sidekick, Grace Vazquez, her favorite memory about Doc and Johnny, she wrote about a time when the show was on the road in Key West. Grace fell off a moped and broke her arm. Through it all she writes, ``One, they never left my side. Two, they still made me laugh. Or maybe it was the painkillers''.

Mr. Speaker, Doc may be a fast-talking guy from New Jersey, and Johnny may be a southerner from North Carolina, but my home town of Orlando, Florida, is a better place because they decided to make their home there. I wish them a happy 15th anniversary on their radio show.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kelsey Ryan, a 9-year old little girl from Celebration, Florida, my home district. Kelsey is a true hero to her community and her country. We are honored that she is here with us today.

Kelsey possesses a life-threatening allergy to peanuts. She is not alone; 4 percent of our population has some form of life threatening allergy, either to peanuts, shellfish, insects or other items.

Kelsey decided to do something about it and took action. She traveled to Tallahassee, Florida, where she testified before six separate committees of the Florida legislature. She explained that by allowing her and other school children to use this Epipen it would help save the lives of 100,000 different school children in Florida who also suffer from life-threatening allergies.

She was so effective that the Florida House and Florida Senate unanimously passed the Kelsey Ryan Act, and it will be signed into law by the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, in a matter of days.

On behalf of the United States Congress, I was pleased today to present Ms. Kelsey Ryan with a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition, an award we humbly give to true American heroes.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of Kelsey in Florida. And today we honor the achievements of an amazing 9-year-old lady who has selflessly helped save the lives of up to 100,000 different school children in my home State of Florida. We are proud of her in Congress. We are proud of her in Florida. We are proud of her back in Celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of the rule and H. Res. 22.

The purpose of the small business bill of rights is to provide a blueprint for Congress to follow to help small business employers create even more jobs. A job is the best social program in the world. It gives a person income and health insurance and dignity. Since 70 percent of all new jobs in this country are created by small businesses, I met personally with 20 very successful small business employers in central Florida to learn firsthand what, if anything, Congress can do to help them create more jobs. Four top-tier issues consistently emerged from these meetings.

First and foremost, they had the problem of addressing skyrocketing health costs, and they wanted the ability to join together to negotiate lower prices.

Second, family-owned businesses, we are seeing one-third of them having to liquidate because of the death tax, and they needed some commonsense reform there.

Third, they had a problem with frivolous lawsuits and skyrocketing liability insurance. Unlike a big corporation, if someone sues them, they do not often have $100,000 to successfully defend the claim, even if frivolous. They have to settle it for a nominal amount, $5,000 or $10,000.

The fourth problem they mentioned over and over was paperwork and red tape.

After listening to their concerns, I joined with my original cosponsor, a Democrat, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), and wrote and filed House Resolution 22.

We have given plenty of opportunity for people to be heard on H. Res. 22. For example, other nonbinding House resolutions sometimes go right to the floor with no hearings, no markups, no motion to recommit. They just get an up-or-down vote on a Suspension Calendar, with no chance to amend at any point. Well, that is not what happened here. In this particular instance, the minority requested that we have a hearing. We readily agreed and had a hearing. At this hearing, witnesses from NFIB and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified that the four issues identified in the small business bill of rights were, in fact, the top four issues affecting small businesses in the United States right now.

The minority was allowed to call witnesses at that hearing, and they did. Every member of the hearing, Republican and Democrat, was afforded two full rounds of questioning. Afterwards, the minority said, well, now we want to have a markup on this nonbinding resolution. We agreed to that as well.

At the markup, in an effort to reach out, I offered a substitute amendment which addressed three additional issues that the minority thought were important to them, issues relating to energy costs and access to capital and contract bundling. The substitute amendment I offered was approved by a voice vote.

Even though I had already included these three additional issues at this markup, the minority offered amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment. For example, one of the amendments called for Members to take a controversial stand on whether or not people agreed with the personal retirement accounts under President Bush's Social Security proposals. Things like that ate up time. The four amendments offered by the minority were defeated. But each time they insisted on calling for a roll call vote which ate up additional time.

Now, it is my understanding that the minority Members had two more amendments that they wished to offer, but the chairman had only scheduled an hour for the markup under the understanding that the minority would have few amendments.

So what exactly did the minority get in terms of due process here? They got a full blown hearing. They got three additional issues added to the original resolution, and they got votes on four of the six amendments they offered.

H. Res. 22 was passed by the full committee on a voice vote. Not a single person on the committee, Republican or Democrat, voiced opposition to H. Res. 22 during that voice vote, and the reason is it represents a noncontroversial consensus of what small business employers tell us they need.

Now, what are the Small Business Bill of Rights? There are seven: first, the right to join together to purchase affordable health insurance for small business employees. The right to simplify tax laws that allow family owned businesses to survive over several generations. The right to be free from frivolous lawsuits which harm law-abiding small businesses and prevent them from creating new jobs. The right to be free of unnecessary restrictive regulations and paper work which wastes the time and energy of small businesses while hurting production and preventing job creation. The right to relief from high energy costs which pose a real threat to the survival of small businesses. The right to equal treatment as compared to large businesses when seeking access to capital and expansion capital and credit. The right to open access to the government procurement marketplace through the breaking up of large contracts to give small business owners a fair opportunity to compete for the Federal contracts.

This is what the small business people in America tell us that they want. This is what we learned from the hearing, and this is what is included as the top tier issues in the Small Business Bill of Rights affecting small business people.

Now, if someone is opposed to this Small Business Bill of Rights, what would they be for? They would be for higher health insurance costs, higher taxes, more frivolous lawsuits, more paper work and red tape, higher energy costs, more obstacles to getting capital and more obstacles to getting government contracts.

Now, significantly, at no time in this process, during the markup or otherwise, has there been any attempt to strip away one of these seven rights. To the extent the minority has a controversy with this, it is not anything that is on the board here. It is they think one or two additional things should be there.

Well, let me remind you. The Small Business Bill of Rights is a blueprint that lists the top tier issues facing small businesses in the United States. It does not list every small business issue known to man. If it did, this thing would be as thick as a phone book, and it would not list the priorities.

Some of the business people I met with had things that I did not list because, while it was important to that person or this person, it was not something that was a consensus issue affecting the small business people across the country.

Now, if a Member has some issue that was not included, and they think it is a real important issue, then there is nothing preventing them from filing their own nonbinding House resolution and having that proceed under the regular order.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule. Plenty of opportunity has been heard for both sides to give their input to the Small Business Bill of Rights. It is a bipartisan Small Business Bill of Rights from the get-go when it was filed by a Democrat and myself, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Small Business Bill of Rights, H. Res. 22.